Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

A police officer discovered Bruce Rask asleep in the cab of his running pickup truck. Rask was ultimately charged with several offenses including driving under the influence (third offense). A jury later found him guilty, and on appeal, the district court affirmed. Rask appealed, raising six points of error at trial. Finding no merit to any of these claims, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Nebraska v. Rask" on Justia Law

In 1984, the State charged Defendant with the murder of his grandmother for hiring her killing. After a stipulated bench trial, the district court found Defendant guilty of second degree murder. The district court sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed on direct appeal. In 2012, Defendant filed a motion for postconviction relief, alleging, inter alia, ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, and prejudicial conduct by the trial judge. The district court denied the motion after a limited evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for postconviction relief. View "State v. Saylor" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of murder in the first degree, use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court committed several errors in its evidentiary rulings and that there was insufficient evidence to support her convictions because of a lack of physical evidence and the credibility of the witnesses. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s assignments of error relating to the district court’s evidentiary rulings were without merit; and (2) there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant’s convictions. View "State v. Jenkins" on Justia Law

After a bench trial, Defendant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance and sentenced to probation. On appeal, Defendant challenged the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress and in finding sufficient evidence to convict him. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in overruling Defendant’s motion to suppress, as the totality of the circumstances demonstrated that Defendant’s interaction with law enforcement was a tier-one police-citizen encounter, that Defendant consented to the search, and that the officer discontinued the search after Defendant’s withdrew his consent; and (2) the evidence was sufficient to convict Defendant. View "State v. Milos" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and use of a weapon to commit a felony. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions and sentences on appeal. Defendant subsequently filed a pro se motion for postconviction relief, generally alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The district court denied Defendant’s motion for postconviction relief without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err when it found there was no merit to each of Defendant’s claims and denied his motion for postconviction relief without granting an evidentiary hearing. View "State v. Starks" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of attempted second degree murder, first degree assault, and use of a weapon to commit a felony. The Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant was entitled to a new trial at which the jury could be instructed on the distinction between second degree murder and voluntary sudden quarrel manslaughter. The district court subsequently granted Defendant’s motion for new counsel. Defendant then pled no contest to the amended charge of attempted voluntary manslaughter. Defendant subsequently filed a motion for postconviction relief, alleging several claims of error. The district court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing despite Defendant’s claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; (2) Defendant’s allegation that the district court erred in hearing his claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel at the hearing on his motion for new counsel prior to his motion for postconviction relief had no merit; and (3) there was no plain error. View "State v. Smith" on Justia Law

Defendant, whose native language was Dinka Bor, pleaded no contest to first degree murder. After a colloquy, the trial court accepted Defendant’s plea, finding that Defendant had entered his plea freely, voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. The trial court sentenced Defendant to life in prison. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s plea was voluntary because he could comprehend the proceedings and communicate in English; and (2) Defendant’s counsel was not ineffective for failing to ensure that Defendant understood his constitutional rights, failing to stop the plea hearing, and failing to request an interpreter. View "State v. Bol" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of driving under the influence (DUI), third offense, with a blood alcohol concentration of .15 or greater. The district court sentenced Defendant to a period of twenty-four months’ probation and, as a condition of probation, ordered Defendant to serve sixty days in the county jail. Defendant appealed, arguing that the court erred in imposing a jail term as a condition of probation, as that is no longer permissible under Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-2262. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a jail term is still available as a condition of probation for a felony DUI because Neb. Rev. Stat. 60-6,197.03(6) is more specific and therefore controls over section 29-2262. View "State v. Thompson" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to robbery. In a separate criminal case, Defendant pleaded no contest to attempted robbery, use of a firearm to commit a felony, and manslaughter. A few days before the sentencing hearing, Defendant moved to withdraw his pleas in both cases, citing newly discovered evidence. After a hearing, the court overruled Defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty and no contest pleas. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the court did not err by overruling Defendant’s motion to withdraw his pleas because of newly discovered evidence; and (2) Defendant entered the pleas freely, intelligently, voluntarily, and understandingly. View "State v. Carr" on Justia Law

Defendant entered a plea of no contest to sexual assault of a child, third degree. At sentencing, the district court considered the effect of certain amendments made to Nebraska’s sentencing laws by 2015 Neb. Laws, L.B. 605, which reduced the penalties for a variety of felonies and amended the indeterminate sentencing scheme for Nebraska felonies. The court eventually sentenced Defendant to a prison term of fifty-nine to sixty months. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in finding that he was not entitled to the reduction in penalties for Class IIIA felonies implemented by L.B. 605. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the reduced penalties for Class IIIA felonies did not apply retroactively to Defendant because he committed his offense before the effective date of L.B. 605; and (2) Defendant’s sentence was within the statutory limits and was not plain error. View "State v. Aguallo" on Justia Law